alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 
to
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is dated as of June 16, 2015, by and between Hancock Fabrics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Steven R. Morgan (the “Executive”).

 

WHEREAS, the Executive is currently employed by the Company as its President and Chief Executive Officer pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of November 7, 2011 and subsequently amended as of July 21, 2014 (the “Employment Agreement”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement as provided herein so that the end of the term coincides with the end of the Company’s 2018 fiscal year.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.     Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

 

“2.     Term.    The term of Executive’s employment pursuant to this Agreement commenced on October 17, 2011 (the “Commencement Date”) and, unless terminated as set forth in Section 9, shall continue through January 26, 2019 (the “Initial Term”). Following the Initial Term, this Agreement shall be extended automatically for successive one (1) year periods (the Initial Term and any extensions being collectively referred to as the “Employment Term”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive shall at all times be considered an “at will” employee (subject to the obligations set forth in this Agreement). Either party may terminate this Agreement as of the end of the then-current period by giving written notice at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of that period. Notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement or Executive’s employment, Sections 9 and 10 shall remain in effect until all obligations and benefits that accrued prior to termination are satisfied.” 

 

2.     Section 4(e) of the Agreement is hereby deleted.

 

3.     Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms.

 

4.     Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

 

5.     This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 

 


 

 




 


  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered on the day and year first above written.

 

 

	
 
	
HANCOCK FABRICS, INC.
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Sam P. Cortez 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Sam P. Cortez
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Chair, Management Review and Compensation Committee
	
 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Steven R. Morgan 	 
	 	Steven R. Morgan	 


 

 

 

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

                    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (                    *See*14 CFR 301.201*et seq.*). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings.                          ( print page 22892)    

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2010-0086.                

*Date Filed:*                     April 6, 2010.                

*Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:*                     April 27, 2010.                

*Description:*                     Application of Nova Airlines AB requesting an exemption and a foreign   air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail to the full extent authorized by the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, and the United States (“EU-US Agreement”), as follows: (i) From any point or points behind any Member States of the European Union via any point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and beyond; (ii) between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area, including Norway; and (ii) other charters.                

Renee V. Wright,

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2010-10096 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVILA ESTRADA ADAME; et al.,

Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72420 Agency Nos. A206

- 678

- 712

A206

- 678

- 713 A206

- 678

- 714 A206

- 678

- 734

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2019 **
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Marvila Estrada Adame, her husband, and their minor children , natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application s for a sylum and with holding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without or al argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72420

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review

. Th e BIA did not err in declining to consider the two proposed particular social group s that petitioners raised for the first time to the BIA. See Honcharov v.
Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (BIA did not err in declining to consider a rgument raised for the first time on appeal); see also Matter of W

- Y

- C

- & H

- O

- B

- , 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190

- 91 (BIA 2018) (where the IJ did not have an opportunity to make relevant factual findings, the BIA cannot do so in the first instance on appeal). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish a nexus between their religion, including a related pacifist ideology, and the harm they experienced or fear in Mexico

. See INS v. Elias

Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v.
Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motiv ated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).
The BIA failed to address petitioners’ contention that the y established a
nexus between the harm t hey experienced and fear and an imputed political opinion based on a perceived association with the Knights Templar. See Sagaydak3 18

- 72420

v. Gonzales , 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [ is ] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”).
Thus , we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to cons ider petitioners’ imputed political opinion claim in the first instance. See INS v.
Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam) ; Coronado v. Holder , 759 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part ;
REMANDED

.
The HONORABLE HOWARD F. SACHS, United States District Judge for the 1

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1438

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

Eric Lashon Jiles, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 6, 1997

 Filed: September 2, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

While serving a ten-year term in the Missouri correctional system, Eric Lashon

Jiles appeared in federal court under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and

pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the attempted possession of cocaine base with

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district

court sentenced Jiles to 188 months in prison and five years supervised release,

1

recommending to the United States Bureau of Prisons that his federal sentence run 
-2-

concurrently with his state sentence. Jiles returned to state custody, where he was

reclassified as a more serious offender due to the federal conviction. Jiles appeals his

sentence, arguing that he has lost rights and privileges in state prison in violation of the

Double Jeopardy Clause, and asking us to direct the district court to order the Bureau

of Prisons to take him into custody so he may serve his concurrent sentences at a

federal prison. We affirm.

“As a general rule, the first sovereign to arrest a defendant has priority of

jurisdiction for trial, sentencing, and incarceration.” Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d

1361, 1365 (9th Cir. 1991). A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum affords only

temporary custody of a prisoner confined within another jurisdiction for purposes of

indicting, prosecuting, and sentencing the prisoner. See Flick v. Blevins, 887 F.2d 778,

781 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 934 (1990). Jiles has not

shown that the State of Missouri waived its prior right of custody or agreed that he may

serve his concurrent sentences within the federal correctional system. Therefore, he

gives us no basis to order the Bureau of Prisons or the State of Missouri to transfer him

to federal custody. 

Jiles concedes that his federal conviction and sentence do not violate the Double

Jeopardy Clause. Whether his loss of privileges in state prison raises a legitimate

double jeopardy concern is not within our jurisdiction on this appeal. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
|                           |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|--------------------------------|----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:     | April 28, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|                           |           |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|                           |           |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|                           |           |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|                           |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|                           |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated:                         | April 28, 2011 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|                           |           |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|                           |           |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                           |           |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|                           |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|                           |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
Defendant San Antonio Housing Aut hority’s Notice of Interlocuto ry Appeal Page 1 CAUSE NO. 2014-CI-16503

SERENTO APARTMENTS, LLC Plaintiff

VS. § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

288 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT §

SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY Defendant § § § § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS



### DEFENDANT SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY’S NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendant SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY, in the abo ve

styled and numbered cause, now A ppellant, and files this, its N otice of Interlocutory Appeal

pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P.25.1 AND T EX .R.A PP .P.28.1. The trial court, as well as the case’s trial

court number and style, are ide ntified above. Defendant SAN AN TONO HOUSING

AUTHORITY desires to appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, sit ting in San Antonio, from the

Order Denying Defendant San Antonio Housing Authority’s Plea to the Jurisdiction, and its

Motion to Dismiss based on the defense of governmental and sove reign immunity and signed on

January 22, 2015. Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction, and it s Motion to Dismiss was heard and

denied by the Hon. Stephani A. Walsh, Judge of the 45 th Judicial District Court of Bexar County,

Texas. This appeal is interlocutory under §§51.014(a)(5) & (8) of the Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code and, thus, is an accelerated appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P.28.1. 04-15-00075-cv ACCEPTED 04-15-00075-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/11/2015 4:56:29 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKDefendant San Antonio Housing Aut hority’s Notice of Interlocuto ry Appeal Page 2 Respectfully subm itted,

HOBLIT FERGUSON DARLING LLP Bank of America Plaza 300 Convent Street, Suite 1450 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-9991 Facsimile: (210) 226-1544 Email: mralls@hfdlaw.com

By: N. MARK RALLS State Bar No. 16489200 APRIL Y. QUIÑONES State Bar No. 24079167

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, HOUSING AUTHORITY OF TH E CITY OF SAN ANOTNIO D/B/A SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 11 th day of February, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was sent via facsimile to the following co unsel of record:

James A. Rickerson Via Facsimile: 210-734-8097 Law Office of James A. Rickerson 111 E. Euclid San Antonio, Texas 78212 Counsel for Plaintiff

N. MARK RALLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128949 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver (64) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128949 

 COA: 252185 

Marquette CC: 03-040456-FC

STEVEN EDWARD TIERNEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of 

February 27, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

l0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting correction. 

                    The Department of Energy published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee, 73 FR 8863. In FR Doc. E8-2891, published on Friday, February 15, 2008, page 8863, under                     **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                    , third column, second line, remove ``onshore unconventional'' and add in its place ``ultra-deepwater''.                

 Issued in Washington, DC on February 29, 2008.

 Rachel Samuel,

Deputy Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 08-948 Filed 2-29-08; 11:10 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
| (1)   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Western Ridge Minerals, Inc. for the      quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the      information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Western Ridge Minerals,      Inc. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Marco Bastidas                                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Marco      Bastidas                                                             |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | August      14, 2008                                                            |
Superior Court

of the

State of Delaware

Jan R. Jurden Leonard L. Williams Justice Center

President Judge 500 North King Street, Suite 10400

Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3733

Telephone (302) 255-0665

March 9, 2021

Adria B. Martinelli, Esquire Frank Minor

Lauren E.M. Russell, Esquire 210 Abbey Lane

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP Logan Township, NJ 08085

Rodney Square

1000 N. King St. Daniel C. Mulveny, Esquire

Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Department of Justice

820 North French Street, 6th Fl. 

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: Delaware River & Bay Authority 

v. 

Frank Minor and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

C.A. No. N19A-10-004 JRJ

Dear Counsel and Mr. Minor:

The Court has received two letters filed on March 3, 2021—one filed 

by Appellee Frank Minor and the other filed by counsel for Appellant 

Delaware River & Bay Authority.

1

 

In his letter, Mr. Minor asks the Court to strike Appellant’s Reply Brief

because it was filed later than 10 days after Appellant’s counsel received his 

Responding Brief.

2

 Mr. Minor notes that this deadline was established in the 

briefing schedule that the Court issued on November 19, 2020.3

1 Trans. ID. 66388073; Trans. ID. 66388192.

2 Trans. ID. 66388073.

3 Trans. ID. 66388192; Trans. ID. 66126992.
2

Appellant’s counsel respond that, due to COVID-19, they had been

working remotely when the Responding Brief was delivered.

4

 They also 

explain that their law firm’s “normal protocols for logging and emailing mail 

to the recipient were for some reason not followed in this instance,” so they 

did not receive notice of the Responding Brief until it was filed electronically.5 

After they received notice, Appellant’s counsel filed the Reply Brief within 

10 days pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 6(a).6

Recognizing that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which has

sown much logistical confusion, the Court declines to strike Appellant’s 

Reply Brief for untimeliness. 

Very truly yours,

/s/ Jan R. Jurden

Jan R. Jurden

President Judge

JRJ:mls

cc: Prothonotary

4 Trans. ID. 66388192.

5

Id.

6

Id.